Welcome to the new world disorder: conflict and transformation in Ian McEwan’s saturday

Ian McEwan‘s novel Saturday deals with the complex issues of conflict and transformation in the age of terrorism. The plot presents one internal dilemma and several interpersonal altercations that occur within a mere twenty-four hours: a) Perowne (the protagonist) vs. himself, in face of his ambivalent thoughts regarding British military participation in the war in the Middle East; b) The protagonist vs. Baxter, a ruffian from East End, in the context of a car accident; c) Perowne vs. a fellow anaesthetist, Jay Strauss, during a squash game; d) Perowne‘s daughter, Daisy vs. her grandfather, John Grammaticus, both poets and rivals; e) Perowne‘s family vs. Baxter, who intrudes the protagonist‘s house. In this paper, I exemplify, analyse and discuss how: a) Understanding the causes of what we call evil constitutes an important step towards mutual understanding; b) Both science and arts (which Perowne considers, at first, irrelevant) are important elements in the process of transformation; c) Both personal and interpersonal conflicts are intrinsic to human nature — but they also propitiate healthy changes in behaviour and opinion, through reflection. In order to do so, I resort to Saturday, and to the work of several specialists in the field of conflict management.

Argumentation as Distributed Belief Revision: Conflict Resolution in Decentralised Multi-agent Systems

Decentralised co-operative multi-agent systems are computational systems where conflicts are frequent due to the nature of the represented knowledge. Negotiation methodologies, in this case argumentation based negotiation methodologies, were developed and applied to solve unforeseeable and, therefore, unavoidable conflicts. The supporting computational model is a distributed belief revision system where argumentation plays the decisive role of revision. The distributed belief revision system detects, isolates and solves, whenever possible, the identified conflicts. The detection and isolation of the conflicts is automatically performed by the distributed consistency mechanism and the resolution of the conflict, or belief revision, is achieved via argumentation. We propose and describe two argumentation protocols intended to solve different types of identified information conflicts: context dependent and context independent conflicts. While the protocol for context dependent conflicts generates new consensual alternatives, the latter chooses to adopt the soundest, strongest argument presented. The paper shows the suitability of using argumentation as a distributed decentralised belief revision protocol to solve unavoidable conflicts.